It sounds to me like you’ve already started with the conclusion that 30% is too much considering you’re against all retailers taking 30%, seemingly without any regards to the context any of these retailers might have. How is it that you’ve determined that 30% is too much, and don’t forget that you’re the one who argued that other distributors are not relevant in this discussion.
Oh is that because Steam exists in isolation and can’t be compared to any other platform? If so, tell me what about Steam makes it an apples to oranges comparison with Epic, GOG, Origin, and Battle.Net? If they’re up for discussion then why is it that physical game distribution isn’t allowed to be talked about? If an average consumer is only really concerned about getting the game then why are some forms of getting their game not allowed for discussion? Why should retailers be exempt from this discussion?
You also didn’t seem to mind slashing their cut percentage in half, but how can we know that’s a feasible percentage if we’re not allowed to talk about other distributors and see if they’re able to make 15% work? If we’re not considering other distributors at all then who’s to say if 30% is unreasonable? Should it be increased or decreased and by how much?
Suppose we were instead talking about Nintendo selling games for too much, how would we decide it’s too much if we couldn’t compare it to other studios, distributors, or platforms that demonstrate they can still run a business and charge less?
Face it, talk about and comparison to any other distributor or distribution method is fully relevant and required if you want to have any meaningful discussion. You just don’t seem to want to discuss retailers because they’re hurting your weak argument.
So companies made due with the same cut from retailers for decades, Steam comes along and offers the same cut with none of the other expenses associated with those retailers (thereby giving them a better RoI than the same retailers they made due with for decades) and suddenly Steam is the reason games are so expensive.
For all of your talk that Steam’s awful cut sets the bar for the price or else they won’t make their RoI on games sold there, you suddenly don’t seem to care very much about the very many retailers these AAA publishers still regularly sell through that cost them a significantly larger percentage per game sold than Steam does.
I find it absolutely wild that you seem to think Steam’s 30% cut is the sole reason AAA games cost $70. Have you ever looked into how much it costs to sell a game at a retail store? From what I’ve seen Steam takes roughly the same cut as most retailers do and then the publisher still has to produce the physical copies and distribute them. They would make the same amount on Steam if and only if they printed, burned, packaged, and distributed their physical copies for free, not to mention the promotional materials they’re sending out to retailers.
Everything I’m seeing indicates that compared to a physical copy (which is given for a majority of AAA games) a major publisher would earn far more money per copy on Steam than at GameStop, Target, Walmart, or any other retailer where they’re charging the same $70 price at. But Steam is the real problem that’s hurting their RoI, apparently.
I’ll agree I think Steam’s cut is high and they could earn a lot of favor by turning it down a bit, but your argument seeming to insinuate that their 30% cut is the sole reason games cost $70 is absolutely wild to me.
It’s possible they have more games in their library as they did say 300+ games they want to play, but yeah the numbers they gave don’t add up to hundreds of thousands. Unless they were taking phrases like “a $700 Demon Souls machine” very literally.
I haven’t played in a week or two but I’m pretty sure that certain stratagems can deform the terrain, like the 500kg.
Eh, at least as far as the combat goes I liked doing the Net Runner thing: hacking cameras left and right and killing off enemies before they ever saw me. That being said I put the game down when it became too much of a chore to get much anything upgraded. My combat style may have been suboptimal but I had fun with it.
I also didn’t have any issues with bugs or graphical issues, but I also first played it pretty far into its life after they could fix plenty of things. Don’t remember exactly when it was, but it was after the anime was no longer super relevant but before that big 2.0 update. I also know I played using some mods, and I can’t remember if there was a mod that fixed a bunch of issues.
I think I would change that one to sometime along the lines of “No corporation is above criticism.” Maybe with some addendum like “regardless of how favorably you view them.” The reason being is that I think it’s perfectly fine to try to set a record straight if there’s blatant misinformation going on about a corporation that’s been doing good by people, but no matter how much good they might have done they should never be above critique.
Case and point being LMG with their recent issues regarding allegations of sexism, harassment, overworking employees, bullying, and adopting the exact same practices that they themselves have criticized major tech corps for, among other issues. Now I don’t mind correcting the record if someone was saying some stupid BS about them, however you can bet that I was also one of the ones calling them out on the things they did.
From what I’ve heard Valve is already refunding most everyone who asks for a refund given this controversy.
One of my friends made the mistake of linking his PSN account right when he started playing Helldivers 2 then shortly found he was banned from the game. After he did some digging, he found his PSN account was banned for “suspicious activities” despite having not used it in over a year. After even more digging he eventually finds out it was because when they kept charging him for their premium service and he was trying to cancel it, they wouldn’t remove his payment information. He checked multiple times with them and they said they did.
Next payment period rolls around and they charge him for another year of service all the same. He tries to get it refunded, he talks to them about how they said they removed the payment info and it’s nothing but “well there’s nothing we can do about it now” type bullshit. So he goes to his bank and did a charge back on the annual fee, since they keep insisting it’s impossible. Wouldn’t ya know it suddenly it’s very easy to remove his payment info, cancel that premium service, and take care of everything.
All of this was done about a year prior, and he left his account untouched since fuck Sony and PlayStation at that point. I guess they waited until his account was active again being used for a game for them to suddenly realize they really don’t like his charge back and deactivate his account entirely, blocking access to everything linked to it, including Helldivers 2.
Not to detract from your point, but the word you’re looking for is cease. Seize is to forcibly obtain something, like “seizing the means of production.”
It sounds like how you feel about Rebirth is pretty similar to how I felt about Remake having played the original several times. Not going to say you couldn’t or shouldn’t have enjoyed it, but there were a ton of story bits and minigames that frustrated the hell out of me.
Yes I both am aware and agree that that would be acting against archives and the like. EA making these games available on Steam however is not the same as Nintendo suing emulators.
What makes you say that this is aiming to make that impossible? I picked up RA2 because it was cheap and I figured if I didn’t like the port (doesn’t work well, forces you to play on their application, etc) I’d just return it and so far it’s been good enough for me to use. The installation process was a lot easier than the original game and I was able to hop straight in and play. Haven’t had any issues with it yet.
So far I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this is anything but them catering to a different market that being the steam community.
- you cannot get rid of bloatware, only hide it
That’s also true on other OSes, like Android and Windows 11.
You can get rid of bloatware on Android, though. I use a Note 9 which has the stupid Bixby button. I used adb to uninstall the applications associated with Bixby as well as other Samsung bloat and now if I so chose I could bind that button to different actions like media controls.
I don’t know if there’s a term for that, but imo Rocket League had the same thing going for years. The game used to always queue a team based on the MMR of the highest ranked team member. People complained they couldn’t play the game with their super low level friends in competitive play, so they changed it so it would average the rank between team members.
The reason I always hated this change was because an average bronze player can barely compete with an average silver player, and etc through the ranks. If you play in 2v2, then you can have a bronze and gold player against two silvers and the game thinks it’s a fair fight. In reality, the gold player is likely going to run circles around both of the silvers while the bronze player barely needs to do anything except try and interfere with the silver team’s defence for it to be no competition at all. I can only imagine the problem would have been even worse in 3v3 matches.
At least before when everyone queued by the highest ranked member’s MMR, then you had to be selective about who you brought with to make sure they can carry their weight. After the change, they streamlined the smurfing and boosting problems the game already has.
Tried bringing it up in community discussions but the whole community (especially at the time) wanted to do nothing but circle jerk Psyonix’s dicks with that same argument: “well Psyonix has the data and you don’t, so how do you know this is a problem? They have the data and they made the change so clearly it must not be a problem”
Because my phone is a lot easier to carry in my pocket while I’m out doing errands than my gaming desktop. Or a steam deck.
The digital area is something I haven’t looked much into so I can’t really comment on that but I know regarding physical media the relevant US laws only really make exceptions for things you’ve done yourself. Just because you own a physical copy of Pokemon Yellow doesn’t mean you’re allowed to download a copy of it from off the Internet. You’re allowed to make and use a backup from a physical cart you own. This is why emulators can’t (legally) include ROMs, ISOs, BIOS files, encryption keys, etc. as those are the copyrighted materials that you’ll need to make a copy of yourself to legally use emulators.
To my knowledge (not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) what you did is indeed piracy because you downloaded it. If you had cracked it yourself you probably would have broken some licenses and whatnot that you had agreed to with EA, but I don’t believe that would have been piracy.
Either way EA is very much unlikely to do much anything about it as for the most part the industry only cares about the sources of pirated materials. They generally only ever go after people distributing pirated materials so they’ll (legally) attack torrent sites, ROM sites, and other such distributers. The most you’re likely to ever get personally is a strongly worded letter (possibly a C&D) to your ISP from some AAA video game company if they notice you seeding a torrent for their game as then you’re being a distributer of pirated materials.
Outside of that I’ve never heard of them coming after anyone for having the entire collection of GBA titles on their thumb drive or emulating Halo having never owned an Xbox or playing the latest Sim City without always online functionality. I’m not saying it can’t or won’t happen, but you’d make headlines if it did.
Great, you have a simple rule that’s wholely unrealistic and as poorly construed as pretty much everything else you’ve been saying so far. Such a rule could so easily be worked around that it may as well already exist for all that it would matter.
I’ll again reiterate that I agree with what you want to argue. I agree that I think Steam could probably take a smaller cut, still be profitable enough to stay in business at the same scale they are, afford more smaller businesses a better cut of the money they’re generating for themselves and for steam, and give the option to charge less to consumers. I agree that there are too many mega corporations, making way too much money, screwing too many of their clients, customers, and employees. I agree that too many executives are making genuinely fuck loads of money that are inhumanly excessive.
I’ll still say again though, that pretty much everything you’ve argued so far is wildly unrealistic, unfounded in reality, barely thought through at all, and comes across as the absurd ramblings of a middle schooler who passed an economics elective.
I’ll also point out the hypocrisy of you attacking Steam (and to your credit other distributors retail or otherwise) but defending the publishers that by your arguments simply must charge more or else they don’t make money back on their investment. Your argument defends AAA publishers such as EA churning out games year after year with the exact same code just different stats for sports games (FIFA, NBA, whatever the current football games are), games exploiting gambling addictions (pay to win, FOMO, loot boxes), and games exploiting the efforts and attention of children (Roblox).
Also “something must be broken in your brain for you to defend them instead of your own interests” is rich coming from the person who’s very visibly experiencing double-think seemingly genuinely arguing “of course publishers aren’t going to charge less for their titles on other digital marketplaces because if they need a $49 RoI on Steam then they’re going to charge the same $70 price on other platforms” at the same time as “well if Steam didn’t charge a 30% cut then you would pay $50 for an otherwise $70 title!” as if you don’t believe in your own argument that they would charge the same exact price on Steam as they do elsewhere.